open access

Ahead of print
Research paper
Published online: 2021-08-16
Get Citation

Use of psychoactive substances by Polish students during exam time

Justyna Gacek1, Roksana Duszkiewicz2, Rafał Bobiński1
DOI: 10.5603/PSYCH.a2021.0031
Affiliations
  1. Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Technology and Humanities in Bielsko-Biała
  2. Faculty of Medical Sciences in Katowice, Medical University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland

open access

Ahead of print
Prace oryginalne - nadesłane
Published online: 2021-08-16

Abstract

Objective: The objective of the study was to determine whether students take psychoactive substances during exam time and whether it affects their academic performance. The assessment was a subjective evaluation by the student. The purpose of the work was also to determine which psychoactive substances are the most popular among students, and whether students feel under pressure, in their environment, to produce the best results. Method: An anonymous online survey about the use of psychoactive substances was conducted between November 1, 2017 and March 31, 2018. It was addressed to students of Polish universities. In total 610 students took part in the survey. More than half of the respondents were men. After adjustments were made to the questionnaires where e.g. not all the questions were answered, 536 surveys remained. Results: Students feel pressurised by their parents to obtain the best results and to take part in the so-called "rat race". The most popular psychoactive substance is marijuana. Students use psychoactive substances, but in a much smaller amount than expected by the authors. Conclusions: The problem of psychoactive substance use is not as big as was assumed at the beginning of the study, however, in order to completely eliminate the problem of using psychoactive substances, lectures should be held on the consequences of drug use.

Abstract

Objective: The objective of the study was to determine whether students take psychoactive substances during exam time and whether it affects their academic performance. The assessment was a subjective evaluation by the student. The purpose of the work was also to determine which psychoactive substances are the most popular among students, and whether students feel under pressure, in their environment, to produce the best results. Method: An anonymous online survey about the use of psychoactive substances was conducted between November 1, 2017 and March 31, 2018. It was addressed to students of Polish universities. In total 610 students took part in the survey. More than half of the respondents were men. After adjustments were made to the questionnaires where e.g. not all the questions were answered, 536 surveys remained. Results: Students feel pressurised by their parents to obtain the best results and to take part in the so-called "rat race". The most popular psychoactive substance is marijuana. Students use psychoactive substances, but in a much smaller amount than expected by the authors. Conclusions: The problem of psychoactive substance use is not as big as was assumed at the beginning of the study, however, in order to completely eliminate the problem of using psychoactive substances, lectures should be held on the consequences of drug use.
Get Citation

Keywords

psychoactive substances; drugs

About this article
Title

Use of psychoactive substances by Polish students during exam time

Journal

Psychiatria (Psychiatry)

Issue

Ahead of print

Article type

Research paper

Published online

2021-08-16

DOI

10.5603/PSYCH.a2021.0031

Keywords

psychoactive substances
drugs

Authors

Justyna Gacek
Roksana Duszkiewicz
Rafał Bobiński

References (36)
  1. Zawilska JB. An Expanding World of Novel Psychoactive Substances: Opioids. Front Psychiatry. 2017; 8: 110.
  2. van Os J, Linscott RJ, Myin-Germeys I, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the psychosis continuum: evidence for a psychosis proneness-persistence-impairment model of psychotic disorder. Psychol Med. 2009; 39(2): 179–195.
  3. Haney M, Hart CL, Vosburg SK, et al. Effects of THC and lofexidine in a human laboratory model of marijuana withdrawal and relapse. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2008; 197(1): 157–168.
  4. Spangler R, Zhou Y, Maggos CE, et al. Dopamine antagonist and "binge' cocaine effects on rat opioid and dopamine transporter mRNAs. Neuroreport. 1996; 7(13): 2196–2200.
  5. Neve KA, Seamans JK, Trantham-Davidson H. Dopamine receptor signaling. J Recept Signal Transduct Res. 2004; 24(3): 165–205.
  6. Purves D, Augustine GJ, Fitzpatrick D. Neuroscience. 4th ed. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland 2004.
  7. Nazarian A, Sun WL, Zhou L. et. al. Różnice płci w podstawowych i wywołanych kokainą zmianach w białkach PKA i CREB w jądrze półleżącym. Psychofarmakologia. 2009; 203(3): 641–50.
  8. Wang Y, Ghezzi A, Yin JC, et al. Regulacja ekspresji genu kanału BK przez CREB leży u podstaw szybkiej tolerancji na lek. Geny, mózg i zachowanie. 2009; 8(4): 369–76.
  9. Obara I, Mika J, Schafer MKH, et al. Antagonists of the kappa-opioid receptor enhance allodynia in rats and mice after sciatic nerve ligation. Br J Pharmacol. 2003; 140(3): 538–546.
  10. Chartoff EH, Barhight MF, Mague SD, et al. Anatomically dissociable effects of dopamine D1 receptor agonists on reward and relief of withdrawal in morphine-dependent rats. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2009; 204(2): 227–239.
  11. Luu P, Malenka RC. Spike timing-dependent long-term potentiation in ventral tegmental area dopamine cells requires PKC. J Neurophysiol. 2008; 100(1): 533–538.
  12. Carlezon WA, Duman RS, Nestler EJ. The many faces of CREB. Trends Neurosci. 2005; 28(8): 436–445.
  13. Ford CP, Beckstead MJ, Williams JT. Kappa opioid inhibition of somatodendritic dopamine inhibitory postsynaptic currents. J Neurophysiol. 2007; 97(1): 883–891.
  14. Ebstein R, Novick O, Umansky R, et al. Dopamine D4 receptor (D4DR) exon III polymorphism associated with the human personality trait of Novelty Seeking. Nature Genetics. 1996; 12(1): 78–80.
  15. Wierońska JM, Zorn SH, Doller D, et al. Metabotropic glutamate receptors as targets for new antipsychotic drugs: Historical perspective and critical comparative assessment. Pharmacol Ther. 2016; 157: 10–27.
  16. Bonci A, Bernardi G, Grillner P, et al. The dopamine-containing neuron: maestro or simple musician in the orchestra of addiction? Trends Pharmacol Sci. 2003; 24(4): 172–177.
  17. Palucha A, Pilc A. The involvement of glutamate in the pathophysiology of depression. Drug News Perspect. 2005; 18(4): 262–268.
  18. Conn PJ, Christopoulos A, Lindsley CW. Allosteric modulators of GPCRs: a novel approach for the treatment of CNS disorders. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2009; 8(1): 41–54.
  19. Huber KM, Kayser MS, Bear MF. Role for rapid dendritic protein synthesis in hippocampal mGluR-dependent long-term depression. Science. 2000; 288(5469): 1254–1257.
  20. Chaki S, Yoshikawa R, Hirota S, et al. MGS0039: a potent and selective group II metabotropic glutamate receptor antagonist with antidepressant-like activity. Neuropharmacology. 2004; 46(4): 457–467.
  21. Roth-Deri I, Green-Sadan T, Yadid G. Beta-endorphin and drug-induced reward and reinforcement. Prog Neurobiol. 2008; 86(1): 1–21.
  22. Chen ZW, Olsen RW. GABAA receptor associated proteins: a key factor regulating GABAA receptor function. J Neurochem. 2007; 100(2): 279–294.
  23. Luan YH, Wang Di, Yu Qi, et al. Action of β-endorphin and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and the possible effects of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs on β-endorphin. J Clin Anesth. 2017; 37: 123–128.
  24. Wojnar M, Ślufarska A, Klimkiewicz A. Nawroty w uzależnieniu od alkoholu. Część 3: Społeczno-demograficzne i psychologiczne czynniki ryzyka. Alkoholizm i Narkomania. 2007; 20(1): 81–102.
  25. Sztumski JW. Wstęp do metod i technik badań pedagogicznych. Wyd. Śląsk, Katowice 1995: 66.
  26. Ocena rozpowszechnienia, powodów i form użycia tak zwanych „dopalaczy” przez uczestników ankiety internetowej. Psychiatr Pol. 2013; 47(6): 1143–1155.
  27. Bolla KI, Brown K, Eldreth D, et al. Dose-related neurocognitive effects of marijuana use. Neurology. 2002; 59(9): 1337–1343.
  28. Pach J, Tobiasz-Adamczyk B, Krawczyk E. Zjawisko zażywania substancji psychoaktywnych przez studentów medycyny, badania ewaluacyjne. Przegl Lek. 2006; 63(6): 393–397.
  29. Kułak A, Shpakov A, Kułak P. Wstępna analiza problemu nikotynizmu, alkoholizmu I narkomanii w populacji studentów. Probl Hig Epidemiol. 2011; 92(1): 137–145.
  30. Wilczyński P. Pseudokontrola pseudoefedryny. Tygodnik Powszechny. 2010; 34: 3–5.
  31. Moskalewicz J, Sierosławski J, Świątkiewicz G. Program zapobiegania narkomanii w Polsce „Odlot”. Alkoholizm i Narkomania. 1997; 2(27): 197–230.
  32. Pietryka-Michałowska E, Wdowiak L. Dreher P. Zachowania zdrowotne studentów akademii medycznej. Zdr Publ. 2004; 114: 532–536.
  33. Mechoulam R, Panikashvili D, Shohami E. Cannabinoids and brain injury: therapeutic implications. Trends Mol Med. 2002; 8(2): 58–61.
  34. Zawilska JB, Wojcieszak J. An expanding world of new psychoactive substances-designer benzodiazepines. Neurotoxicology. 2019; 73: 8–16.
  35. Sierosławski J. Używanie alkoholu i narkotyków przez młodzież szkolną. Raport Krajowego Biura ds. Przeciwdziałania Narkomanii. 2015.
  36. Grabowska M, Gwiazda M. Młodzież. Raport Centrum Badania Opinii Społecznej i Krajowego Biura ds. Przeciwdziałania Narkomanii. 2019.

Regulations

Important: This website uses cookies. More >>

The cookies allow us to identify your computer and find out details about your last visit. They remembering whether you've visited the site before, so that you remain logged in - or to help us work out how many new website visitors we get each month. Most internet browsers accept cookies automatically, but you can change the settings of your browser to erase cookies or prevent automatic acceptance if you prefer.

Wydawcą serwisu jest Via Medica sp. z o.o. sp. komandytowa, ul. Świętokrzyska 73, 80–180 Gdańsk

tel.:+48 58 320 94 94, faks:+48 58 320 94 60, e-mail:  viamedica@viamedica.pl